hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz at gmail.com
Sat Jul 26 01:21:32 CEST 2008
John C Klensin wrote:
> I sent a note off earlier today whose purpose is to dump much
> of this terminology stuff (and the 1123 clarification and
> related issues) onto the DNS experts and/or WG(s) or at least
> get them to work with us on it. Don't know if that will be
> successful, but I'm going to feel better for having tried.
Good, if they don't answer -- busy to fix DNS worldwide -- we
can take this as carte blanche to define the minimum we need
for IDNAbis and to introduce "real" IDN TLDs as it pleases us.
In another article you mentioned RFC 2673 for the difference
between "binary" and "octets". IMHO we can ignore RFC 2673
for IDN. The SPF folks also ignored it for RFC 4408 back in
2005. You could mention that in theory any octets goes (in
prose) somewhere. That is relevant if folks try to use UTF-8
U-labels directly without first converting them to A-labels.
Of course using UTF-8 U-labels directly will fail, but if it
*happens* to be a valid octet label the corresponding domain
could be controlled by the bad guys => security consideration.
Apart from that facet octet labels are irrelevant for IDNAbis;
and we can focus on "LDH" vs. "A" in some ways. Without the
z-label business mentioned by Eric. And without SRV-labels -
or is there something about IDNA and SRV I've never heard of ?
More information about the Idna-update